Milan Saini filed a consumer case on 17 May 2018 against Aditya Comm. in the Kurukshetra Consumer Court. The case no is 240/2017 and the judgment uploaded on 05 Jun 2018.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.
Complaint Case No.240 of 2017.
Date of institution: 03.11.2017.
Date of decision:17.05.2018.
Milan Saini S/o Sh. Suresh Kumar Saini, Advocate, R/o House No.2095, Sector-5, Kurukshetra.
…Complainant.
Versus
….Respondents.
BEFORE SH. G.C.Garg, President.
Sh. Kapil Dev Sharma, Member.
Present: Sh. Rahul Saini, Advocate, for the complainant.
Ops exparte.
ORDER
This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Rahul Saini against M/s. Aditya Communication and others, the opposite parties.
2. It is stated in the complaint that the complainant purchased a new Micromax Canvas Laptab (wifi +3G) Atom 4th Gen bearing IMEI No.V202341511100000629 from the Op No.3 for a sum of Rs.11,998/- on 05.03.2017 vide order ID:OD20855735191032400. It is alleged that just after one and half month, the said laptab started giving problems i.e. power on, LCD/Display/Touch Keypad and hang problem. It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Ops No.2 & 3 several times to repair or replace the same but the Ops No.2 & 3 did not listen the genuine request of complainant. So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to replace the defective laptab of complainant with the new one and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as litigation charges.
3. Upon notice, the Ops did not appear and opted to proceed exparte. The Ops No.1 & 3 were proceeded exparte vide order dt. 14.12.2017, whereas Op No.2 was proceeded exparte vide order dt. 19.04.2018.
4. We have heard the ld. Counsel for the complainant and perused the record carefully.
5. From the cash memo, it is made out that the Unit in question was purchased on 05.03.2017 for the sale consideration of Rs.11,998/-. From the perusal of complaint and other documents, it is clear that the unit became defective within the warranty/guarantee period and despite several requests, the defects could not be removed from the said laptab. In these circumstances, the complainant is entitled to get it replaced from Op No.2, who is manufacturer of the unit in question.
6. In view of our above said discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and we direct the OP No.2 to replace the laptab of the complainant with new one of the same model. The complainant is directed to deposit the old laptab along with bill and accessories with the service center of the company. The order; be complied within a period of 60 days, failing which, penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite party No.2. Copy of this order be communicated to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
Dt.:17.05.2018.
(G.C.Garg)
President.
(Kapil Dev Sharma)
Member
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.